Sodomy vs. The True Nature of Marriage

[Hassan]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='15 April 2010 - 03:09 PM' timestamp='1271358582' post='2094154']
Again show me explicit documentation from the last 30 years where it states oral stimulation of the genitals [ oral sex]is forbidden. Your disgust is not criteria.
[/quote]


question
[spoiler]It's ejaculating in the mouth rather than the vagina. Which can't make the babies. Assuming you don't mean oral sex as the whole deal but just foreplay, I have to ask.

How is that any different than anal sex as foreplay?[/spoiler]

Edited April 15, 2010 by Hassan

[Hassan]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='15 April 2010 - 03:26 PM' timestamp='1271359568' post='2094165']
Thank you for making it clear that the Mod team has a large pro Christopher West bias, and that those that do not agree with his teachings are censored or 'highly encouraged' to keep objections to his errors secret. The errors taught by Mr. West will not be left out of this discussion. NO RULE WAS BROKEN, he was never personally attacked, the only thing attacked was his teaching. I object to the abuse of power and conflict of interest used by some of the Mods to suppress all debate in opposition to the errors of his teachings. There was no need to even think of closing the thread. The argument that because Mr. West is on sabbatical is not a reason to forgo a debate of his teachings. Calling his leave a sabbatical is a pro West spin, another way of looking at it is that he because of the errors of his teachings has been asked to temporarily suspend his duties and cease his teachings. The purpose of this debate was the error in West's teaching that caused that suspension.

Last night before I went to bed you asked for more info on the errors of West, with sources. I promised you I would return today with that information. Now you have prevented me from doing so, I object. It was an abuse of power and conflict of interest for you to ask me to provide other errors with proof and then to change the title of this thread and prevent a free debate on the errors of West. Just because you and others take a more pro-west side does not make it ok to suppress the options of those who object to the errors of West's teachings.
[/quote]

You aren't debating his teachings. You are debating what he said in a volume before replacing it with an edition which seems indisputably in conformity with your Church's views on sex.

No offense but you are way to obsessed with this West guy and sodomy.

[HisChildForever]

GROSS Hassan. Maybe you should change your wording in post 84.

[Hassan]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='15 April 2010 - 04:30 PM' timestamp='1271363424' post='2094197']
GROSS Hassan. Maybe you should change your wording in post 84.
[/quote]

Wow. I honestly didn't mean to be vulgar. I thought all the language I used there had been in use throughout the thread. Was something in particular too much?

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Hassan' date='15 April 2010 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1271363542' post='2094200']
Wow. I honestly didn't mean to be vulgar. I thought all the language I used there had been in use throughout the thread. Was something in particular too much?
[/quote]
+JMJ+
can you still put it into spoiler tags? if not, i can do it for you.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Lil Red' date='15 April 2010 - 04:35 PM' timestamp='1271363702' post='2094201']
+JMJ+
can you still put it into spoiler tags? if not, i can do it for you.
[/quote]


I hid it. But I really am confused about what in it was gross. That has been the subject of most of the thread. Was it just stated too explicitly?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='15 April 2010 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1271358582' post='2094154']
Again show me explicit documentation from the last 30 years where it states oral stimulation of the genitals [ oral sex]is forbidden. Your disgust is not criteria.
[/quote]

Why does it have to be from the last thirty years?

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Hassan' date='15 April 2010 - 01:37 PM' timestamp='1271363820' post='2094202']
I hid it. But I really am confused about what in it was gross. That has been the subject of most of the thread. Was it just stated too explicitly?
[/quote]
+JMJ+
yes. we need to be careful on how things are worded since we have youngun's around these parts. thank you

[Hassan]

[quote name='Lil Red' date='15 April 2010 - 04:42 PM' timestamp='1271364142' post='2094206']
+JMJ+
yes. we need to be careful on how things are worded since we have youngun's around these parts. thank you
[/quote]


Sorry. I'm not religious and I'm living in a dorm (I just mean that what I said was pretty innocent compared to what the normal standard of vulgarity is when you have four hundred teens/young adults living together). Sometimes I honestly just forget that the range of non-vulgar talk kind of shrinks here.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Hassan

[Seven77]

We did not know the reason behind West's suspension. KofC, the way you are pointing out his errors implies that they are the cause of the suspension. Point out the errors without calling West out (as the others here like Kam and HCF are doing). But you want to tar and feather the man because you "were right about West" and "can prove it."

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Seven77' date='15 April 2010 - 04:44 PM' timestamp='1271364264' post='2094208']
We did not know the reason behind West's suspension. KofC, the way you are pointing out his errors implies that they are the cause of the suspension. Point out the errors without calling West out (as the others here like Kam and HCF are doing). But you want to tar and feather the man because you "were right about West" and "can prove it."
[/quote]

Knight has criticized West for his ideas, he has not criticized West as a person. I think too many here are "implying" that Knight is making personal attacks against West, which is not the case.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='15 April 2010 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1271361646' post='2094179']
Do you know for a fact that he was "suspended" for precisely his teachings, specifically on sodomy? Got reliable source?[/quote]

I did not state that it was specifically for his teachings on sodomy. But that it was precisely because of the problems he has had with his teachings, he is a 'teacher', that's what he does, that is what has got him in so much trouble now. Teaching error, or objectionable things.


[quote name='kamiller42' date='15 April 2010 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1271361646' post='2094179']Spinning West's break from the speaking circuit as a suspension for his teachings would be an anti-West spin and could be interpreted as a personal attack on West. Without intimate knowledge of the situation and sources to back it, you shouldn't shape events to fit an agenda, which appears to me to tar and feather West.[/quote]

Yes, calling his leave a suspension would be anti-west, but it would be false to interpreted it as a personal attack. He's been ask to take 'time off' because of all the controversy he has caused lately.

[quote name='kamiller42' date='15 April 2010 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1271361646' post='2094179']It's one thing to say "West taught X, Y, and Z. X, Y, and Z are wrong because..." and another to say "[West has been busted. This is no sabbatical! He is being suspended because his teachings were just so wrong. About time! Don't like that? You're just pro-West!]" Can you see how the former focuses on the issues and the latter is on the person?
[/quote]

Yes if how you've taken and twisted and made a mockery and an exaggeration of my opposition, and that mockery and an exaggeration would be a personal attack. Mockery is a personal attack. This is a temporary suspension of Mr. West's duties and he has chosen to spend the time in sabbatical. There were warning signs long before this suspension, and there are justifiable reasons for the suspension. If when I return from class I will keep my promise to Seven and provide other warning signs and errors of his teachings.

Edited April 15, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Hassan' date='15 April 2010 - 01:44 PM' timestamp='1271364262' post='2094207']
Sorry. I'm not religious and I'm living in a dorm (I just mean that what I said was pretty innocent compared to what the normal standard of vulgarity is when you have four hundred teens/young adults living together). Sometimes I honestly just forget that the range of non-vulgar talk kind of shrinks here.
[/quote]
+JMJ+
not a problem.

[Seven77]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='15 April 2010 - 05:50 PM' timestamp='1271364632' post='2094210']
Knight has criticized West for his ideas, he has not criticized West as a person. I think too many here are "implying" that Knight is making personal attacks against West, which is not the case.
[/quote]

No... you've actually criticized West for his ideas commendably without attacking him as a person. Would that Knight would follow your example in this regard. Do not defend your friend needlessly--- this thread was created in bad taste and was very untimely. But do continue...

Edited April 15, 2010 by Seven77

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='15 April 2010 - 04:50 PM' timestamp='1271364632' post='2094210']
Knight has criticized West for his ideas, he has not criticized West as a person. I think too many here are "implying" that Knight is making personal attacks against West, which is not the case.
[/quote]

Indeed, I have spent nearly half the time in this thread defending myself personally.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Seven77' date='15 April 2010 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1271365279' post='2094218']
No... you've actually criticized West commendably without attacking him as a person. Would that he would follow your example. Do not defend your friend needlessly--- this thread was created in bad taste and was very untimely. But do continue...
[/quote]

I have not attacked his person or character it is a lie to state otherwise.

[Seven77]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='15 April 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1271365359' post='2094221']
I have not attacked his person or character it is a lie to state otherwise.
[/quote]

Your attitude indicates otherwise. This thread itself was originally an attack on West's character and integrity. Honestly ask yourself if it was--- If not well and good. We are Christians here.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Seven77' date='15 April 2010 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1271365279' post='2094218']
No... you've actually criticized West for his ideas commendably without attacking him as a person. Would that Knight would follow your example in this regard. Do not defend your friend needlessly--- this thread was created in bad taste and was very untimely. But do continue...
[/quote]

Actually, I know little about West and have been discussing the immorality of anal penetration.

With that being said, I have not seen Knight make any personal attacks against West.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Seven77' date='15 April 2010 - 05:07 PM' timestamp='1271365655' post='2094224']
Your attitude indicates otherwise. This thread itself was originally an attack on West's character and integrity. Honestly ask yourself if it was--- If not well and good. We are Christians here.
[/quote]

Personal attack =/= attitude

Besides, on an internet forum, attitude becomes subjective.

[Socrates]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='15 April 2010 - 03:08 PM' timestamp='1271358520' post='2094152']
It was not [u]only[/u] rooted in the idea that the act causes women pain, but that the act degrades both persons. That it would cause her pain is just [u]one[/u] example of how it degrades a woman. I just listed one example. Although I did mention the positioning of the spouses for the act, which removes eye contact and physical embrace from the act, which again makes the woman the object and the man selfish (after his own interests).

As for a woman "enjoying" anal penetration, well I do not know how that is possible - biologically or psychologically.



My mistake, I mentioned it in the other thread that got closed.
[/quote]


[quote name='HisChildForever' date='15 April 2010 - 04:19 PM' timestamp='1271362741' post='2094187']
Then perhaps spouses should question the [i]why[/i].

- Why have anal penetration as foreplay?
- Is the marital act not "satisfying" enough? If "yes" - why?
- Why risk mortal sin? (Since it is very likely the man will finish by accident; I said in the other thread that anal penetration is like a mockery of the marital act)
- Are your motives pure and selfless?



Yes, I believe these points have been brought up already.



Exactly. Since anal penetration is an unnatural sex act, it is disordered.



You're right. I know exactly what I think about oral sex but I'm not going to subject anyone to a three page rant.
[/quote]
Doesn't sound tremendously different from what Christopher West is saying:[quote]For those who would seek to justify anal penetration as a form of foreplay to intercourse, there are some important considerations that can't be overlooked. To begin with, the rectum is full of bacteria, which are dangerous to both the male and female reproductive systems. Furthermore, since the anus and rectum are not biologically designed to accommodate a penis, penetration can cause temporary or permanent harm.
Aesthetically speaking, such behavior involves contact with human waste, which is tolerated when necessary, but not something joyful, beautiful, and pleasing to both spouses. Is it truly loving to subject one's wife to health risks, not to mention the discomfort or even pain associated with such behavior?[/quote]

Seems everyone's essentially in agreement. This is much ado about nothing.